Every conversation on here about a legal case is: people who aren't lawyers (definitely not lawyers in China) doing a "what's legal" take, versus people doing a "legal realist" take, versus people doing a "what I think should be legal" take. Some mishmash in between.
All three of these takes are pretty basic in their extreme ("we shall see (in court)," "capitalism," and "as long as the law absolves specifically me and people I like." Let's just play it out:
- Did she break some laws? Probably, and whoever broke the law most clearly will lose in court. We'll see what the judge says. Not sure if judges in China are impartial.
- But if she went to court, the insurance company is pretty rich so it will win. Also this is China. As a matter of who should win...
- I will never be an insurance company, even if I sometimes would like cheaper insurance I will never be on the wrong side of justice here, they're a bunch of scoundrels. What about all the ways they rob me?
Here you go, that's every legal perspective you're going to hear, from a commenter or journalist or whatever. Obviously what we want to know is HOW she did it.
All three of these takes are pretty basic in their extreme ("we shall see (in court)," "capitalism," and "as long as the law absolves specifically me and people I like." Let's just play it out:
- Did she break some laws? Probably, and whoever broke the law most clearly will lose in court. We'll see what the judge says. Not sure if judges in China are impartial.
- But if she went to court, the insurance company is pretty rich so it will win. Also this is China. As a matter of who should win...
- I will never be an insurance company, even if I sometimes would like cheaper insurance I will never be on the wrong side of justice here, they're a bunch of scoundrels. What about all the ways they rob me?
Here you go, that's every legal perspective you're going to hear, from a commenter or journalist or whatever. Obviously what we want to know is HOW she did it.